From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: oh dear ... |
Date: | 2003-11-15 02:17:08 |
Message-ID: | 200311150217.hAF2H8Q05264@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I said:
> > This worked in 7.3:
> > regression=# select '1999-jan-08'::date;
> > ERROR: date/time field value out of range: "1999-jan-08"
> > HINT: Perhaps you need a different "datestyle" setting.
>
> > Setting DateStyle to YMD doesn't help, and in any case I'd think that
> > this ought to be considered an unambiguous input format.
>
> This appears to be an oversight in the portions of the datetime code
> that we recently changed to enforce DateStyle more tightly.
> Specifically, DecodeNumber was rewritten without realizing that it was
> invoked in a special way when a textual month name appears in the input.
> DecodeDate actually makes two passes over the input, noting the textual
> month name in the first pass, and then calling DecodeNumber on only the
> numeric fields in the second pass. This means that when DecodeNumber is
> called for the first time, the MONTH flag may already be set. The
> rewrite mistakenly assumed that in this case we must be at the second
> field of an MM-DD-YY-order input.
>
> I propose the attached patch to fix the problem. It doesn't break any
> regression tests, and it appears to fix the cases noted in its comment.
>
> Opinions on whether to apply this to 7.4?
I guess the question is whether we would fix this in a minor release,
and I think the answer it yes, so we can fix it now.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-11-15 02:39:02 | Re: oh dear ... |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-11-15 02:00:25 | Re: oh dear ... |